Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
There are deductive and inductive tests.
Deductively, if the mathematics of the Great Year, including my claim that the Age is a harmonic twelve part division of it, were shown to be false, this would undermine my theory.
|
Can we tightly define "Age" and "Great Year" in such a way that we can objectively determine if one is 1/12 of the other?
Quote:
|
If the link between precession and the barycenter cycle was proved to be invalid this would weaken my theory but would not falsify it.
|
So we must look elsewhere.
Quote:
|
Inductively, there is potential for large scale data mining and statistical analysis, including Fourier analysis, to test for the existence of cosmic cycles in history. For the historical age claim in this thread, this inductive testing faces the complex problem of how to describe data points that are separated by long time periods. I hope this problem will eventually be surmountable, in which case it might reveal cycles of differing periods or none at all which would falsify the claim. An intermediate step could be, as I have suggested before, to conduct large scale epidemiological study of planetary effects, for example by putting birth and death dates of millions of people into a database and looking to see if any variance in lifespan correlates to planetary alignments.
|
But as life expectancy does not necessarily influence ages of exploration, etc, even if we found no correlation I don't see why this would cause you to reject the "Astronomical history" hypothesis.
Quote:
|
The SSB is an integrated combination of all planetary alignments, so a demonstration that no planetary alignments had statistical effect on life expectancy would be a test that would undermine the whole project of finding correlations between human culture and cosmic cycles.
|
What do you mean by planetary alignments? I suspect that this term could cover a multitude of possible confiigurations and hence finding a chance correlation seems to be not out of the question.
Also, see my previous comment.
Quote:
|
I believe these effects are at the liminal boundary of measurability so large datasets and good protocols are needed for testing. If large scale statistical tests found nothing, that would not necessarily prove planetary effects do not exist, just that they are so small as not to be worth worrying about. If the China data had not enabled me to spin a plausible story it would have been a setback.
|
In an earlier post I talked about
"confirmation bias". Your approach here appears to be extremely prone to this effect. Can you explain how you avoid this risk?
Quote:
On a side point, Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability strikes me as inadequate as a theory of knowledge.
.
.
.
I believe this narrative will in time be recognised as objective, evidence-based and testable.
|
It can only be testable if you are able to make observations that may, in principle, falsify the theory.